scholarly journals The Kosovo Precedent in the Secession and Recognition of Crimea

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr.Sc. Elvina Jusufaj

Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its annexation to the Russian Federation invoked Kosovo precedent, in its declaration of independence, as an argument for secession. The territorial referendum in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, only five days after the declaration of independence, was an attempt to justify the secession based on the right to selfdetermination of the people of Crimea. It is overwhelmingly considered illegal and its outcome has not been accepted and recognized by states, regional and international organizations. The comparative elements of statehood and secession between Kosovo and Crimea are reflected through analyzing the declarations of independence, international recognition and Russia’s role as a third-state factor in external selfdetermination. Essential distinctions are highlighted. Kosovo is widely acknowledged and accepted a sui generis case. Its declaration of independence came as result of a long monitored comprehensive process; not to legitimize the right for self-determination but as the final option for stability and peace in the region. Crimea seceded in violation of international law through the use of force. While Kosovo is a democratic, multi-ethnic new state and recognized by 107 states, the secession of Crimea and its annexation to the Russian Federation is considered illegal and endangers the existing international order.

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dardan Vuniqi

State is society’s need for the existence of an organized power, equipped with the right equipments of coercion and able to run the society, by imposing the choices that seem reasonable to them, through legal norms. State is an organization of state power; it is an organized power which imposes its will to all the society and has a whole mechanism to execute this will. The state realizes its functions through power, which is a mechanism to accomplish its relevant functions. The power’s concept is a social concept, which can be understood only as a relation between two subjects, between two wills. Power is the ability to impose an order, a rule and other’s behavior in case that he doesn’t apply voluntary the relevant norm, respectively the right. Using state power is related to creation and application, respectively the implementation of law. To understand state power better, we have to start from its overall character. So, we notice that in practice we encounter different kinds of powers: the family’s one, the school’s one, the health’s one, the religion’s, culture’s etc. The notion of powers can be understood as a report between two subjects, two wills. Power is an order for other’s behavior. Every power is some kind of liability, dependence from others. In the legal aspect, supremacy of state presents the constitutive – legislative form upon the powers that follow after it. Supremacy, respectively the prevalence, is stronger upon other powers in its territory. For example we take the highest state body, the parliament as a legislative body, where all other powers that come after it, like the executive and court’s one, are dependable on state’s central power. We can’t avoid the carriage of state’s sovereignty in the competences of different international organizations. Republic, based on ratified agreements for certain cases can overstep state’s power on international organizations. The people legitimate power and its bodies, by giving their votes for a mandate of governance (people’s verdict). It is true that we understand people’s sovereignty only as a quality of people, where with the word people we understand the entirety of citizens that live in a state. The sovereignty’s case actualizes especially to prove people’s right for self-determination until the disconnection that can be seen as national – state sovereignty. National sovereignty is the right of a nation for self-determination. Sovereignty’s cease happens when the monopoly of physical strength ceases as well, and this monopoly is won by another organization. A state can be ceased with the voluntary union of two or more states in a mutual state, or a state can be ceased from a federative state, where federal units win their independence. In this context we have to do with former USSR’s units, separated in some independent states, like Czechoslovakia unit that was separated in two independent states: in Czech Republic and Slovakia. Former Yugoslavia was separated from eight federal units, today from these federal units seven of them have won their independence and their international recognition, and the Republic of Kosovo is one amongst them. Every state power’s activity has legal effect inside the borders of a certain territory and inside this territory the people come under the relevant state’s power. Territorial expansion of state power is three dimensional. The first dimension includes the land inside a state’s borders, the second dimension includes the airspace upon the land and the third dimension includes water space. The airspace upon inside territorial waters is also a power upon people and the power is not universal, meaning that it doesn’t include all mankind. State territory is the space that’s under state’s sovereignty. It is an essential element for its existence. According to the author Juaraj Andrassy, state territory lies in land and water space inside the borders, land and water under this space and the air upon it. Coastal waters and air are considered as parts that belong to land area, because in every case they share her destiny. Exceptionally, according to the international right or international treaties, it is possible that in one certain state’s territory another state’s power can be used. In this case we have to do with the extraterritoriality of state power. The state extraterritoriality’s institute is connected to the concept of another state’s territory, where we have to do with diplomatic representatives of a foreign country, where in the buildings of these diplomatic representatives, the power of the current state is not used. These buildings, according to the international right, the diplomatic right, have territorial immunity and the relevant host state bodies don’t have any power. Regarding to inviolability, respectively within this case, we have two groups to mention: the real immunity and the personal immunity, which are connected with the extraterritoriality’s institute. Key words: Independence, Sovereignty, Preponderance, Prevalence, Territorial Expansion.


Author(s):  
Mai Taha

In Gillo Pontecorvo’s evocative film The Battle of Algiers (1966), viewers reach the conclusion that the fight against colonialism would not be fought at the UN General Assembly. Decolonization would take place through the organized resistance of colonized people. Still, the 1945 United Nations Charter and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided some legal basis, albeit tenuous, for self-determination. When Third World leaders assembled in the 1955 Bandung Conference, it became clear that the UN needed to shift gears on the question of decolonization. By 1960, and through a show of Asian and African votes at the General Assembly, the Declaration for the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was adopted, effectively outlawing colonialism and affirming the right of all peoples to self-determination. Afro-Asian solidarity took a different form in the 1966 Tricontinental Conference in Havana, which founded the Organization of Solidarity with the People of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The conference gathered leftist activists and leaders from across the Third World, who would later inspire radical movements and scholarship on decolonization and anticolonial socialism. This would also influence the adoption of the 1974 Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and later lead to UNESCO’s series that starts with Mohammed Bedjaoui’s famous overture, Towards a New International Economic Order (1979; cited as Bedjaoui 1979 under the Decolonization “Moment”). This article situates this history within important international-law scholarship on decolonization. First, it introduces different approaches to decolonization and international law; namely, postcolonial, Marxist, feminist, and Indigenous approaches. Second, it highlights seminal texts on international law and the colonial encounter. Third, it focuses on scholarship that captures the spirit of the “decolonization moment” as a political and temporal rupture, but also as a continuity, addressing, fourth, decolonization and neocolonial practices. Finally, this article ends with some of the most important works on international law and settler colonialism in the 21st century.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Михаил Пресняков ◽  
Mikhail Pryesnyakov

In article the question of validity of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and some other sources of the right which can also possess the highest validity is considered. In particular the author comes to a conclusion that legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation possess the highest validity and in total with the constitutional provisions represent the actual Constitution. On the other hand, both laws on amendments to the Constitution, and the universally recognized norms of international law on the validity stand below constitutional precepts of law. Acts of the Constitutional Assembly of the Russian Federation may in future be qualified as having the highest judicial effect. Such acts may abolish or change any provision of the present Constitution. At the same time the universally recognized norms of international law and the laws of the Russian Federation regulating amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation as independent juridical acts and sources of constitutional law are inferior as compared with the constitutional legal norms.


Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gruzdev ◽  
Dmitriy A. Babichev ◽  
Natal'ya A. Babicheva

The article is devoted to the burning problem that arose in 2014 in the Ukraine, in the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk, and that concerns the right of the people of Donbass to self-determination. This problem is not only of a local territorial nature, but it is also one of the most complex debatable problems of international law. Since the right to self-determination contradicts the principle of territorial integrity of the state, the consideration and solution of this issue is the most burning for the whole population living on the territory of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. In the article, the authors analyse the concept of "self-determination of the people" and give a generalised characteristic of it, approving that it is the right of every nation to solve the issues of state structure, political status, economic, social and cultural development independently and at its own discretion. The author also examines the historical past of the people of Donbass, where, in terms of the Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog and various documentary historical and legal materials, we come to the conclusion that the population of Donbass has the right to social, economic, cultural, spiritual and other development just as all the recognised countries of the world.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (7) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Konrad RYDEL

The article describes the most important international law issues related to the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation. The first part of the text concerns with the infringements of the international law made by Russia (infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda, the principle of non intervention and the principle of the prohibition of aggression). The second, essential part of the text concerns the inadmissibility of self-determination of people in the case of the Crimea. Russian involvement in the Crimea results the illegality of self-determination in this case. It is also impossible because the case of Crimea does not meet the required conditions. This causes the inadmissibility of the secession of this territory.


Author(s):  
Castellino Joshua ◽  
Doyle Cathal

This chapter assesses the question of the people and peoples to whom the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) applies, tracking the concepts of person, persons, groups, people, and peoples in international law, and the UNDRIP's contribution to these concepts. The opening section of the chapter illustrates that the status of indigenous peoples in customary international law stands closer to peoples in the continuum between minorities and peoples. Minorities, while gaining the right to protection and promotion of their group identity, do not automatically gain the right to self-determination. Indigenous peoples ought to, but their rights towards this are constrained by state interests.


1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
René Lefeber ◽  
David Raič

We agree with André de Hoogh that the Chechens did not possess a right to external self-determination prior to the massive indiscriminate use oi military force by Russia in December 1994. At no point have we argued or suggested otherwise. Hence, up to December 1994, the Chechen claim did indeed not meet the conditions set by paragraph seven of the Friendly Relations Declaration. However, the Friendly Relations Declaration needs to be interpreted in view of usus and opinio iuris. In other words, one has to analyse how this paragraph has developed in customary international law. According to our analysis of the law of self-determination, the emergence of a right to external self-determination depends on two cumulative conditions, viz. 1) the serious and persistent violation of the right to internal self-determination and 2) the exhaustion of all total and international peaceful remedies by the people concerned to effectuate its right to internal self-determination. These conditions must be deemed fulfilled if the parent state seriously and massively violates the fundamental human rights and freedoms – in particular by an arbitrary violation of the right to life – of the persons belonging to the people concerned.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 112-125
Author(s):  
N. R. Chebykina ◽  
K. A. Lyamina

The subject of the article is the legal basis of human rights and freedoms, including their restriction as one of the aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of the research is to confirm or confute the hypothesis that the restriction of human rights in particular the right to life, the right to health and freedom of movement in Russia during COVID-19 pandemic is legally justified.The methodology of research includes the formal legal interpretation of legal acts as well as the comparative analysis of Russian and foreign legal literature. The authors analyze and interpret international law, including international treaties and the law of foreign states as well as law of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.The main results. Restrictive measures of main human rights may lead to the violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, and can also create conditions for abuse of authority while applying the rules governing the emergency situations. International human rights law allows the suspension of certain rights in an emergency that threatens the life of the nation. This can only be done in cases where the emergency has been officially declared, the adoption of emergency measures is caused by an urgent need in the current situation, does not contradict other obligations under international law, is limited in time and does not lead to discrimination. The provisions of the Russian Constitution provide criteria, which observance is mandatory when introducing restrictions on human and civil rights and freedoms. However, no state of emergency was introduced in the Russian Federation. The state has adopted the self-isolation regime that does not have sufficient legal regulation. It has created legal uncertainty. The legal basis of measures to restrict freedom of movement is questionable. It seems these measures go beyond the high-alert regime and require the adoption of regulations that meet the requirements of legislation in the field of emergency situations. The realization of the right to health requires a solution to the problem of coordinating the needs of other patients and patients with COVID-19.Conclusions. Based on the analysis of international law, the law of foreign states and lawmaking activities of state authorities of the Russian Federation in the context of the spread of coronavirus, the authors conclude that the created legal framework for regulating the current situation is characterized by inconsistency, lack of «transparency» and radicality. Unfortunately, the pandemic has shown that regulation in sphere of emergencies, as well as health care, was not fully prepared for active spread of coronovirus. It is necessary to ensure that all emergency measures, including the imposition of a state of emergency, are lawful, proportionate, necessary and non-discriminatory, with a specific purpose and duration.


2020 ◽  
pp. 96-102
Author(s):  
E.Y. Kovalenko ◽  
O.A. Shavandina

The article studies the national and international legal framework for regulating relations in thefield of physical culture and sports. It has been established that studying and taking into account positiveforeign experience in effectively regulating relations arising in the field of physical culture and sports, forimproving the norms of national sports law, including for codifying the sports legislation of Russia, is oneof the important reasons for the development of international cooperation of the Russian Federation withforeign countries. Another important reason is the need to harmonize and unify the national legislation ofRussia in the field of physical culture and sports with international law. The development of international cooperation between Russia and foreign countries and international organizations in the direction ofensuring national security is especially relevant in the context of exerting pressure on Russian athletes in thepast decade at sports competitions and events of various levels. It is concluded that Russia needs to developall areas of international cooperation, since physical culture and sport at the national and internationallevels is an important tool for ensuring the sustainable socio-economic development of countries, a tool forpersonal development of a person, a tool for intercultural, partnership and friendly development of interstatecommunication and serves as a powerful incentive to increase the competitiveness of each country in thecontext of globalization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document